Talk:Romanian revolution/Archive 1

There's a duplicate to this article with other contents at Romanian riots. Bogdan | Talk 17:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

big merge
I've now merged that (and attempted cleanup). The article I merged in was very POV. I've done my best to at least tone that down. More work in that direction may still be in order. Also, the article is pretty much devoid of references, although it appears to me to be substantially correct.

Some questions (now mostly answered and worked into the article; below is a summary of what's still open 01:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)):
 * 1) What is someone liable to have meant by "civil securists"? Specifically Securitate? or Securitate and ordinary police?
 * ordinary people that denunced other people to the Securitate
 * 1) "...where they stopped and waved a flag without the coat of arms." What coat of arms? Does this mean the hammer and sickle (which we would never describe in English as a "coat of arms" because of the aristocratic connotations of that phrase)? Or does it mean something else, and actual coat of arms?
 * 2) *I see, the Communist-era flag actually did have a coat of arms. I see it at http://flagspot.net/flags/ro-1948.html. Do we have an image of this anywhere?
 * That one. I don't think we have it.
 * 1) Could someone verify that my translations of the slogans shouted in Timi&#351;oara are correct?
 * yes, they're correct.
 * 1) The article that was already on this page simply asserted, "On December 21, Ceau&#351;escu held a public speech in the capital from the balcony of the Communist Party palace, Casa Poporului..." I gather, though, that the more famous attempt to address the crowd &mdash; his last &mdash; was the following day from what was then the headquarters of the Central Committee of the CPR, opposite the royal palace / art museum on what is now Pia&#355;a Revolu&#355;ie. (I do not know for sure what the square was called in Communist times; is this the Pia&#355;a Palatului referred to elsewhere in the article?) This is of some importance, because the balcony on that building would have placed him only a few meters away from the crowd, whereas an address from the balcony of the Casa Poporului would be from a distance of several stories above the ground. Am I right to gather that the speech on December 21 was from the Casa Poporului and the speech on December 22 from the building I'm thinking of? And at the time that was the Central Committee building? That's how I'll write it for now, but can someone who actually knows the facts please review and sort this out?
 * The Royal Palace is facing the Pia&#355;a Palatului and that's now Pia&#355;a Revolu&#355;iei.
 * 1) By the time Ceau&#351;escu made that speech, weren't there also protests in Sibiu? Neither merged article said this, but I believe it to be the case.
 * I don't know about this.
 * 1) "workers from many industrial platforms..." I have no clear idea what this means so I have left it for now. Maybe "workers from many factories"?
 * An industrial platform was a large (communist style) factory or a group of them in the same industrial zone.
 * 1) "The barrages that stopped access to Pia&#355;a Universit&#259;&#355;ii and Pia&#355;a Palatului..." "Barrages"? Just maybe, so I've left it, but a barrage would mean continuous fire, typically from heavy weapons. I suspect maybe "police barricades" was meant? But I'm not sure. Does anyone have the facts of this?
 * yep. ("police barricades")
 * 1) "After 11 A.M., Victor St&#259;nculescu, now head of the army... orders them to withdraw, and then reports that the crowd has invaded the Palace Square." I don't know what to make of this. Earlier statements imply that by this time the army had gone over to the other side. I assume the reality is what I always believed it to be: that at this point the army was divided. Anyway, besides fixing the verb tense (I've been fixing that repeatedly)... what does it mean "reports that the crowd has invaded the Palace Square." Hadn't the crowd been there for some time? Isn't that where Ceau&#351;escu attempted to address them?
 * probably it should be they invaded the University Square. I don't know for sure. I'll have to check it.
 * 1) "...the post office from Drumul Taberei..." I've left that intact only because I don't know what to do with it. At the very least, I assume it should be "...the post office on Drumul Taberei...", but this rings no bells for me. Is this Bucharest's main post office, in which case we should say so, or just a branch, in which case we should indeed mention what street it is in.
 * "Drumul Taberei" is both a quarter/district (cartier) and a road name.
 * 1) What's Casa Scânteii? I know I've heard the name, but I can't place it.
 * Now it's called Casa Presei Libere. It's in the north of Bucharest, toward Baneasa.
 * I know it well, I've been there for a book launch, I didn't recognize the Communist-era name. -- Jmabel 00:34, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) What's the Republic Palace? I assume it has a different name now, which is why I can't place it.
 * Maybe the House of the People (it was also called the House of the Republic). Bogdan | Talk 19:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Summary of what's still open 01:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd love to get an appropriately licensed image of the Communist-era flag (not so much for this page as for Communist Romania and Romanian flag).
 * I'd still like to know what happened when in Sibiu.
 * "After 11 A.M., Victor St&#259;nculescu, now head of the army..." etc.: this question is still open.
 * Can anyone give more than a maybe on "the Republic Palace" being the Casa Populorului? Since it should be a matter of history where the paratroopers landed, this should be possible to work out from other sources.
 * And, of course, the issues of omission mentioned below are still open.
 * Jmabel 01:47, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Also some remarks on changes I made.
 * 1) I've removed a lot of POV material, mostly purple prose about the glory of the revolution.
 * 2) I changed "Cathedral" to "Romanian Orthodox Cathedral", because in English the former, unqualified, suggests a Roman Catholic cathedral.
 * 3) I am assuming that "TAB's" meant "TAB armored personnel carriers". On the third mention, it says "Transport Auto Blindat, a tank with wheels", which only tends to confirm this; I never knew before what TAB stood for.
 * 4) I have made several interpolations and clarifications; e.g. the phrases "...having hastened back from Iran..." and "...now in rebellion..." were mine.
 * 5) added "It remains a matter of dispute whether army and other leaders turned against Ceau&#351;escu out of sincere revulsion at his policies (as many later claimed) or simply out of opportunism." No I don't have a citation for that, but I've certainly heard enough Romanians put forth both of these theories, as well as some too baroque to mention.
 * 6) added "The previous day's crowd had come together because of Ceau&#351;escu's announced intention to address them."

I'm by no means finished with the merge, but I'm breaking for the night. I do promise to finish up tomorrow.

I see some issues of omission, though, besides the matter of Sibiu, mentioned above:
 * 1) There really should be some discussion of the degree of chaos during the fighting in Bucharest, such as the fight at Otopeni, where &mdash; from what I've heard &mdash; two army factions faced off, each under the mistaken impression that the other was still loyal to Ceau&#351;escu; I'm sure there was much other similar chaos.
 * 2) There should probably be a lot more discussion &mdash; with citations &mdash; of different views of what may have been going on among the leadership of the old regime, who defected when, etc.
 * 3) With reference to the seizure of the national TV station by the insurgents, there should probably be some discussion of what was broadcast; I've seen the footage, it's pretty amazing, but I can't recount in any detail television footage I saw exactly once, several years ago, in a language that at the time I was only about two months into learning.
 * 4) There should probably be a mention of monuments to the revolution: the cemetery at Eroii Revolu&#355;iei and the memorial at Pia&#355;a Universita&#355;ii among others in Bucharest; the monument in the Pia&#355;a Mare in Sibiu (and I would presume there must be a more important monument in Timi&#351;oara).
 * 5) Also, we should really mention the extent of damage to the library, art museum, etc. in the center of Bucharest, and probably a bit about what it's taken to repair these and other damaged buildings.

Jmabel 18:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

"TAB" means indeed "Transportor Auto Blindat" = "Armored personnel carrier". Its armor is rather light and it is armed only with a heavy machinegun. Calling it a "tank" (even with wheels) is too much. MihaiC 09:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terrorists
Just a couple of comments on the "terrorists":
 * the rumours were that terrorists were Arabs called in by Ceausescu (he had some 'special relations' with some Arab nations) -- some Arabs were arrested during the revolution because they looked 'suspicious', but it turned out they were students, not terrorists. :-)
 * some say that there were *no* 'terrorists', but simply different army groups shot at each other, each one believing that the others were terrorists, but this is not believable, because of the high death toll.
 * I am certain of the intervention of some black, unmarked helicopters that were certainly much larger than the helicopters of the Romanian Army, however, without any proof, I think we should not write about them in Wikipedia. (It's interesting that when some guy with a machine gun aboard a black helicopter is shooting at you, you run instead of taking photographs for evidence :-) Bogdan | Talk 20:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have serious doubs that there were any "terorists" in the real sense of the word. My personal theory is that Securitate used desinformation at a big scale. That allowed them to organised for the new period (hide money and documents, eliminate personal enemies and who knows what else). Given the confusion that ruled in that days that wasn't hard and there wan't necessary for a large number of people, just a few trained operatives that knew what to do. Solders in the army were little trained and think of what a scared young man that fear for its life can do with a weapon in his hands. From my own experience (I was 14 years old at that time, living in Slobozia) :
 * People gathered at projects entrace to discuss the events; shootings were heard and everybody get inside the block; in about 2 (two) minutes people exit and stood outside; with so many 15-20 people grups in clear spots it is obvious IMO that casualities could have been much higher if there would have been someone determined to do that.
 * Someone fired a few shots from a 10 floors block toward the military unit that was 2-300 meters away; the solders were just one month in the army and barely knew how to handle the armament; they responded the 'attack' and in a few minutes they fired several thousands rounds (some solders fired ALL the rounds they received). A terorist or a combination of one men + one pistol + one units full of young scared trigger-happy men?
 * The town was ordered to turn off all the lights (some enthusiastic youngs went on streets to yell to those who remained with lights on). In the dark we heard some distinct helicopter sounds, but I didn't found out exactly what it was. Of course that next day everybody talked about the terorists that came by helicopter and landed in the small forest near the town.
 * One ambulance comeing from Urziceni was announce by annonim call that carry terorists. A road block was organised. For unknown reasons the ambulance didn't stoped at solders sign and at the next cross roads was cought in machine-gun cross-fire (from tanks or TABs). In the ambulance there was just the driver (an actual ambulance-driver) and another person.
 * I a few days I went to my grandparents at Cazanesti (a village 30 km weast of Slobozia). There we heard that terorists tried to attack the village large pig farm (!!!) and that (unarmed) citizen retained 2 terorists.
 * I realised some years later when I saw again the immages - in some sqare in Bucharest people tried to hide behind tanks when shootings started. When 50 or so people 'hide' behind a tank, you have to be inspector Clouseau to miss them.MihaiC 08:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

...and other hard-to-prove matters
I would love to see someone who knows Romania better than I do &mdash; preferably someone from there, with an open mind about the competing stories &mdash; compile a compendium of the different, conflicting theories of what was going on that week, with clear attributions as to who has claimed what. I've heard so many contradictory versions of things that I hardly dare enter the fray, and my time in Romania was 2001-2. -- Jmabel 21:42, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright notice???
I see a recently added "copyright notice" in the body of the article: COPYRIGHT NOTICE most contents borrowed from the excellent book "Cinci ani din Istoria României" ("Five years from the history of Romania") by Domni&#355;a &#350;tef&#259;nescu, available somewhere in Bucharest, I think :)


 * 1) What kind of remark, in the article itself, is "available somewhere in Bucharest, I think :)"
 * 2) Are you telling me that the bunch of material I just carefully merged in from another article is a copyright violation? If so, why didn't you speak up before the merge and spare me several hours of tedious work? And are you systematically adding photos to which we have no legal right?

I leave it to someone else to sort this through, because I'm pretty livid. If the taking of material is large enough to constitute a copyright violation, I suppose we have to peal back a bunch of work I did and go about the tedious job of having someone with programmer access peel back the history of the article, since we can't leave the copyvios even in the history. If not, and it falls within fair use, then will someone appropriately edit this to a normal acknowledgment of a reference? If no one has appropriately clarified the matter within a week, I will reluctantly take the initiative to flag this article as a probable copyvio and handle accordingly. -- Jmabel 09:40, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

& for good measure, a change comment makes clear that the pictures come from http://www.infotim.ro/memorial89/memorial89.htm, which clearly contains copyright information. Revolutionary, barring the unlikely possibility that you are Domni&#355;a &#350;tef&#259;nescu and run http://www.infotim.ro/memorial89/memorial89.htm, what exactly is it you think you are doing? -- Jmabel 09:49, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I see from Revolutionary's page that he claims to be (and probably is) "a 13-year old student at School number 11 in Bucharest". Will someone, preferably a compatriot, please give him a lesson about copyright? And is someone willing to take primary responsibility for sorting through this mess? -- Jmabel 10:02, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Explanations
OK, since I started this chaos I should clear it up by giving explanations and answers...

big merge First of all, I had to translate the entire text from Romanian, and there it said "securi&#351;ti în civil", and I naively translated it as "civil securists". Literally it would mean "securists from civilian ranks" or something like that... it probably means civilians recruted to the Securitate voluntarely...

The coat of arms is very disputed anyway. Our communist flag featured sheaves of wheat, a mountain landscape or so and a red star. That was the coat of arms I was reffering to. During the Revolution, because of this red star, the flag was desacrated: the entire coat of arms was forcedly cut off or ripped off, giving the famous December flag, with a large hole in the middle of the yellow stripe.

Yes, there were protests and riots in Cluj, Lugoj and Sibiu, I have pictures of them.

"After 11 A.M., Victor St&#259;nculescu, now head of the army... orders them to withdraw, and then reports that the crowd has invaded the Palace Square". "Palace Square" is a naive translation of the Romanian "Pia&#355;a Palatului" which literally means, Palace Square.

"Drumul Taberei" literally means, "The road of the camp" in English.

I don't know how to translate "TAB", but my family describes it as a sort of tank that has wheels instead of tracks, and that's the reason I've said it was "a tank with wheels".

I don't know how to define "copyright" or anything related, so that's why I caused all this chaos on Wikipedia. I should have said, 'Contents inspired/borrowed from the book...'

I hope my explanations are enough.

I sincerely apologize for causing (although not deliberately) this entire chaos.

And my name is Cristi &#350;tef&#259;nescu, I live in Bucharest and I am a 13-year old student.

Again, I apologize.

UPDATE: I made a mistake in the article: "The jeers and whistles... after a rocket explodes". It's not a rocket. I just forgot how the Romanian word "petard&#259;" is translated to English, but I think it's "firework"


 * Thanks. A few comments (and questions), the less important ones first


 * Yes, I understood the literal (and irrelevant) meaning of Drumul Taberei (though, unsruprisingly, I would have assumed it to be the name of a road, but not of a neighborhood). My question was whether the post office there might be (unbeknownst to me) Bucharest's main post office.
 * Bogdan correctly understood "civil securists", I edited accordingly.
 * "Palace Square" is a naive translation of the Romanian "Pia&#355;a Palatului" Aha! I was uncertain if it might be the name of somewhere in Centrul Civic by the Casa Populorului...
 * I worked out "TAB" correctly: "armored personnel carrier".
 * Protests and riots in Cluj, Lugoj and Sibiu: the most important thing would be the dates. I'm pretty certain there were protests in Sibiu before there were in Bucharest; maybe in these other cities, too. We should mention that.
 * Copyright: this is the biggie. Cristi and I have exchanged a couple of emails, but the best thing would probably be for someone there in Bucharest &mdash; any volunteers? &mdash; to sit down with him (and ideally with the book in question), give him a good explanation of copyright, and work out whether what he did is fair use or not, and then sort this out accordingly.


 * BTW, Cristi, given your age, I'm really impressed, both with the general coherence of your writing and with the fact that you can do this in a language that is not native to you. At the same age, I'd have had a hard enough time buying groceries in any language other than my own. -- Jmabel 19:50, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think that a better translation of "securi&#351;ti în civil" would be "securists in plain cloths" or "securists in civil cloths". Something like the detectivs from the US police force.MihaiC 09:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That should be "clothes" not "cloths" and would end up most likely as "plainclothes securists" (by analogy to "plainclothes police"), except that "securists" is not an English word. I didn't understand it when I first saw it, and doubt others will. Also, it implies being on the payroll, just not in uniform. Is that accurate or misleading? -- Jmabel|Talk 19:22, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

My mistake in english language. The corect full form would be "plainclothes secret-police agents". Yes, they were on the payroll as agensts/officers in the Securitate (sectret police). MihaiC 07:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems that we made a mistake regarding TAB. According with the link I posted in the TAB page, the name means "Transportor Amfibiu Blindat" (armored amphibious personal carrier). I am not sure if is the same TAB that romanian army had in 1989, but it is very likely.MihaiC 12:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"sympathy"
Recently added: "The whole sympathy Romania gained from the outside world with the Revolution was lost during the days of 13-15 June 1990" I do not know what this means. I assume that "The whole sympathy..." means "All of the sympathy..."? It doesn't say why. Is this when the miners routed the student protestors in Bucharest? Even so, I think this (1) overstates the case: surely Romania did not lose all sympathy and (2) is rather POV. A statement like this requires quotation and citation, not statement in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel|Talk 08:05, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't know what POV means; 2. The international opinion was outraged at what happened those days 3. Yes, those were the days of the mineriad... Watch the Mineriad article for more. (unsigned, but it's User:Revolutionary)

"POV" means "point of view". Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. Yes, I agree that international opinion was outraged. The wording is still an overstatement, and it's also exactly the kind of thing where, in order to keep the narrative voice of the article to a neutral point of view one wants to quote some specific outside source to this effect, rather than just assert it.

Again, I renew my call: is there someone in Bucharest who can be a bit of a mentor? We have an obviously extremely capable young person here, but his contributions will be a lot more valuable with a little guidance in aspects of scholarly work that it would simply not be reasonable to expect even a very bright 13-year-old to fully grasp on his own without guidance. I was a plenty sharp 13-year-old myself once, and I know I would have needed some mentoring on this kind of thing. -- Jmabel|Talk 21:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I could try.If he wants, he can contact me at mihai8400@yahoo.com MihaiC 11:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Important announcement


One of the controversies is solved about the photos. I looked up my deleted files and noticed I had asked that institute about "a online encyclopedia" using those photos and they answered: "Da, cu conditia mentionarii provenientei!" meaning "Yes, but with one condition: mention where they came from". I must've deleted that file by accident.

One problem solved: I accidentally deleted an email long ago from the place which I got the photos from, and they gave Wikipedia permission to use the photos, but only if they mention where they came from.

- Revolutionary


 * So does this mean that you will add that information about provenance and permission to the Image pages? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:53, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Final solving
The controversy about "copyright" was solved. I met with an old friend who works for a publishing house and he told me that there isn't any copyright problems here. The problem was that I was stupid enough to mention the book then. Sorry
 * Fine, up to a point, but you don't suppress mention of sources just because you're allowed to use them! You might want to take a look at cite sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

"paramilitary" or "paratroopers"?
A recent, extensive and mostly good anonymous edit made one factual change that I have no idea whether was correct (or even deliberate); Previously, the article asserted that at 9:00 p.m. on December 23, tanks and a few paratroopers arrived to protect the Palace of the Republic. "Paratroopers" became "paramilitary units", which is an entirely different thing. ("Paratroopers" use parachutes. "Paramilitary" are things like militarized police, semi-official forces, etc.) Does anyone know clearly which of the two were actually involved? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was actually paratroopers --should I make the change? Eugen Ivan 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revamp of the article
I would like to make a proposition to completely revamp the article. This means clearing the article of any controversial issues such as: Who was the leardership in the coup d'etat? and what the role of the securitate and army were. The article Romanian Revolution of 1989 should only encompass verifiable facts about the events on that date, as were seen by people on the streets and by the media.

The discussion about who the leadershp was in those days, what their plans were, why there was a bloody massacre throughout the country and who the current political figures are should be moved to a different article. I know this has been suggested but the suggestion was to move it to an article similar to 9/11 Conspiracy theories. This is innapropiate, as the controversial issues in this matter are more than just a simple conspiracy theory. They are the dilemas which face romanians each day, dilemas that still resound in daily political life. Many romanians have simply given up on trying to research the events in question. But I believe writing an article about theories that exist and circulate, presented in a neutral fashion, in the space of a wikipedia article can be very constructive, and I think we can quickly build an image of the theories presented since 1989 to date, even perhaps unearth some forgoten ones.

Presenting them in a neutral fashion as cited facts (statements, doctrine, ideas) could serve as a refference for many young romanians and foreigners who will want to research the truth behind the lies of the Romanian Revolution of 1989.

Also, an effort could be made, and I could pledge to this and hope that others do, to get the various civil groups such as the Timisoara revolutionary group and Liga Studentilor to contribute their own, published and publicly available version of events so as to construct a meaningfull documentation of the reports that are widely spread out in the media.

This article should be given the meanigfull name 21-22, cine-a tras in noi? (21-22, who shot at us? - the emblematic question that was posed after events unfolded, and has become a symbol of discontent a frustration) Warfare utf 05:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that there is something to your suggestion, but I don't think we could do well to put only what is universally agreed into the main article. So much is disputed by participants, scholars, and the Romanian public, that it's hard to think what would be left. Certainly, this article should identify, broadly, where are the areas of significant controversy. Then another article (or articles) could deal with the various controversies, each in as broad and balanced a way as possible. And, everywhere, we should cite like mad, because this is a controversial matter.


 * I'm not sure 21-22, cine-a tras in noi? is a very useful title for an English-language encyclopedia. It won't be understood by even 1% of native English-speakers. And who fired on the crowds is by no means the only controversy. Other controversies range from the extent to which the bulk of the crowds in Timişoara were even aware of the László Tőkés incident that had ignited the initial protest to whether to give any credence to Dumitru Burlan's statements about lengthy conspiracies before the fact. I'd more see an article called Controversies about the Romanian Revolution of 1989, which could take these up one by one, in each case attempting a survey of scholarly and popular opinion, as well as claims by prominent participants. If any gets large enough to clearly merit an article of its own, we could refactor that out. - Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Really do think the section concerning Dumitru Burlan's ideas about what happened during the revolution need to be removed. They're controversial, presented uncritically in a way that will confuse a layperson, and generally at odds with the scholarship on the revolution (see, for instance, The Romanian Revolution of 1989 by Peter Sian-Davies, which argues that, although some members of the party were plotting against Ceausescu, pretty much everybody was taken by surprise by the specific protest that broke out around Tokes). Burlan's statements probably have their place in a section about controversies or theories or some such, but lacing them into the main article like this is going to create unnecessary ambiguity (also, anyone who regards Ceausescu as a competent statesman impugns their reliability as a source).

restore
I propose to restore the article until someone can sustain modifications with arguments and quotations. 19 August 2006
 * As I made clear above, I would welcome the reversion, but I'm not going to be the one to do it this time. - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations really needed
I think that at this point the article is decent, could be better; while further expansion might be good, one of the biggest issues is that it really needs more citation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989
I created this new article. Those who know books about this subject which are not in the list, please add them.--MariusM 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Other
The intro says that while Romanians were dieing to defeat communism, other countiries were "peacefully" becoming non-communist which simply IS NOT true.. the reason why all those countries became non-communist was the fact that communism FELL, otherwise they wouldn't have had a chance... and communism fell in 1991, thats when all those other countries became non-communist, while Romania had the guts to overthrow the communists in 1989.. I find that offensive, annoying, and incorrect, probably written by some communist or something.. i'm deleting it, if someone wants it on there and can prove me wrong, we need to word it differently because it sounds like crap now. and it sounds unfair, as if the revolution and all those people who died in it were fools.. agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.154.34.19 (talk • contribs) 23 November 2006.


 * What the heck? Communism in (for example) Poland didn't just "fall" like a man off a ladder. In contrast to Romania, the Polish Communists weren't ultimately willing to attempt to hold onto power by massive force. (If they had tried, the results would certainly have been far bloodier than in Romania.) Faced with the evident will of the populace, they stepped aside. This is exactly what Ceauşescu did not do. - Jmabel | Talk 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures from Revolution?
Can we have more pictures? For example can anyone find a free image from 22 December with the people on streets (1 million? anyway more than 500,000)? Or picture from 21 December with fighting with the army and police? -- AdrianTM 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

60,000 dead???
When I just looked at this article, the lead paragraph claimed that "It is speculated that at least 60,000 people were killed during the riots, although the exact number of casualties remains unknown." Speculated by whom? This is 20 times higher than the highest estimate I've ever heard. Removing for lack of credibility and lack of citation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Same IP address, as one of its few other edits reduced German casualties in the Battle of Romania by a factor of 10, also without citation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put the official number of deaths and wounded, as the data of Military prosecution. In the article the link I added is written [1], while at the "Refference" section the same link is featured [6]. I don't know how to correct this.--MariusM 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * cite.php is having problems. Not your fault. There is a workaround involving "action=cache". If that doesn't mean anything to you, let me know and I'll try to give you a specific example of how to apply it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

3,000 was your highest? says 5,000. --HanzoHattori 09:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The victims of Ceausescu's madness and brutality were actually about 60,000. It was the second worst tragedy for Europe after world war two. - Zorobabele

Unsourced Rubbish
The Background section includes such loaded language such as:

By 1989, Ceauşescu was showing signs of a complete denial of reality... All the people really got was a lifetime of propaganda....

This kind of gibberish is not acceptable in a popular encyclopedia or civilized discourse anywhere. It's precisely this kind of filth that serves to undermine Wikipedia's credibility.

--RZimmerwald (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section
...too large compared to the rest of the article.--Mazarin07 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording
This requires a NPOV template. Calling someone "tyrant" must be saved for newspaper, not encyclopedia articles.

Also, there is not a single word about the "ad hoc tribunal"'s legitimacy. Which in fact didn't exist at all. 213.91.164.103 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed wording from "tyrant" to "dictator". Ceauşescu being a dictator is not contested by any reliable source as far as I know. There's no reason to use NPOV tag because there's no more info about the process, feel free to add reference material about the legitimacy or lack of it -- to me "ad hoc military court" is pretty descriptive, but again there's not a fault of the entire article even if there is a need for more info in that section. -- AdrianTM 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally...the closing sentence of the "Ceauşescu falls" section is totally inappropriate, as it suggests that the POV of Ceauşescu sympathizers is unquestionably the correct one. PurpleChez (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Gorbachev
I read somewhere that I cannot find (International Herald Tribune) that one of the reasons the Romanian Revolution was so bloody, in comparison with the rest of the Bloc, was that Romania had no Soviet troops and hence the repression could go on without fear of Gorbachov.

If you could identify who sponsors this opinion, it would merit be mentioned. --Error (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you'll accept this, here's a direct quote from peter Siani-Davies' "The Romanian Revolution of December 1989" on this issue: "Romania was isolated with few contacts with its neighbors and paradoxically, the absence of Soviet troops may have contributed to the violence of Ceausescu's overthrow, because, unlike elsewhere in Eastern Europe, Gorbachev possessed no effective leverage to persuade the Romanian leader to leave power peacefully" (Siani-Davies, page 46). Ceasescu's much vaunted autonomous foreign policy probably led to him getting shot. Hallelujah.

This is not how one writes "encyclopedia"
Although the army failed to establish order, it succeeded in turning Timişoara into a living hell: gunfire, casualties, fights and burning cars, Transport Auto Blindat (TAB) armored personnel carriers, tanks and stores. After 8:00 p.m., from Piaţa Libertăţii (Liberty Square) to the Opera there was wild shooting, including the area of Decebal bridge, Calea Lipovei (Lipovei Avenue) and Calea Girocului (Girocului Avenue). Tanks, trucks and TABs blocked the accesses into the city while helicopters hovered overhead. After midnight the protests calmed down. Ion Coman, Ilie Matei and Ştefan Guşă inspected the city, in which some areas looked like the aftermath of a war: destruction, ash and blood.

etc. --HanzoHattori 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the problem? Not dull enough for you? - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anybody with half a brain would notice that the wording in this article is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Pristino (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This article has really deteriorated
This article has really deteriorated. Lots of purple prose, such as "December 1989 was the last act of an end that started in 1987". Lots of unsourced and vaguely sourced material, such as a passage beginning "Emil Hurezeanu tells…"

I'm going to try a little cleanup, but much more is needed here than I can quickly do. This article deserves a major pass by someone who really knows the topic. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not quite as bad as I thought: the problems are/were mainly in the "Background" section, although in general a lot of the article could use more explicit citations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

- I understand your  concerns ....,  unfortunately  your  little  pink  cleanup  is  not  so  welcome. I know  the  topic  and  I  will  use   more  explicit citations the  source : history1989 .eu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimo1989 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"Trucks Braşov"
Is this really the name of the operation (with the American English "Trucks" in the name)? If not, the name should be given in the original Romanian, with the translation given parenthetically. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably, the text refers to the Braşov Tractor Plant, which was for decades the place where Romanian tractors were manufactured. - Biruitorul Talk 02:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that the same as Roman (vehicle manufacturer) / Steagul Roşu? Because I've now found and linked Braşov Rebellion, which gives that as the location. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 04:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Trucks Braşov" would seem to be Roman/Steagul Roşu. (Întreprinderea de Autocamioane Braşov = Braşov Truck Company.) So never mind what I said about the tractor plant; it looks like Braşov made both trucks and tractors, but it was the truck factory that was involved in 1987. (To be precise, the protest started at the truck factory and was joined by the tractor plant.) - Biruitorul Talk 14:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The last gasp etc
I'm confused by this paragraph, in the section entitled "The last gasp etc":

''At that time, fierce fights were underway at Bucharest Otopeni International Airport between troops sent one against another under claims that they were going to confront terrorists. According to a book by Ceauşescu's bodyguard, Securitate Lieutenant Colonel Dumitru Burlan, the generals who were part of the conspiracy led by general Victor Stănculescu were trying to create fictional terrorists scenarios in order to induce fear, and to push the army on the side of the plotters.''

The impression I get is that two different groups of soldiers were sent to the airport by Stănculescu and his generals, and were told to fight each other. This does not seem utterly implausible, but it seems odd. Was it in fact actually a case Stănculescu sending his troops to the airport to fight pro-communist troops on the pretence of fighting communists? Or vice-versa? Answer in the article if possible.-Ashley Pomeroy 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of controversy, and is unlikely ever to be cleared up. There is no question that two military groups were fighting one another at the airport. There is no question that after the fact, both claimed to be on the side of the revolution. Beyond that, really all we have is different people's theories. This article probably gives more space (and perhaps more credence) to Burlan than I think is correct (I think he's rather self-aggrandizing, very oriented toward conspiracy-based explanations, and not entirely reliable even on events where he was present), but that's partly because no one has really done the legwork to cite what others have had to say about the matter. I would love to see someone do the work to integrate some others' interpretations into the article, equally well-cited as to who makes these claims. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The otopeni incident resulted from confusion:

What happened there is: there was a lot of confusion. The troops ordered to guard the airport were told that terrrorists would try to attack the otopeni airport. So the military had 2 field machineguns posted near the airport, at the end of a narrow road. A truck filled with 30 soldiers was send from Bucharest to the airport to relieve the troops that had been guarding the airport for a while. The soldiers at the airport saw the truck approaching, and because of the confusion and because they were told or they believed that terrorist could be in that truck, opened fire with the two field machine guns, posted at the end of the road on which the truck was going. Because there of the sudden intense fire from two directions, all the soldiers in the truck were almost instanlty killed (or 28 dead, 2 badly wounded and dead afterwards). Blakut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakut (talk • contribs) 7 March 2006


 * Do you have a citation for this? In is a matter of controversy, another uncited version doesn't really add much to the picture. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put in a cited version. Blakut (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In “Misterele revolutiei romane-revenire dupa ani” by Aurel Perva and Carol Roman ISBN 975-97751-5-2, on page 130 there’s a summary of an article in the “Romania Libera” newspaper (no. 11/January 5, 1990) by Victor Dinu ,called “O tragica eroare” which apparently pastes together memories of the officers from the group that got shot at.

From what I understood it says that on December 23rd the commander of the Securitate troops located at the Baneasa barracks received a request from the military to take part with forces the size of a company in the defense of Otopeni airport, a mission that he entrusted to a company (commanded by lt. Vladimir Barbu) belonging to a military unit from Campina (UM 0865), which was at the time also stationed at the Baneasa barracks.

They left from Baneasa in three military trucks and headed on DN1 towards Otopeni. Along the way they were stopped at several road-blocks but were allowed to pass after being identified. As they got at the junction with the road that leads to the airport, they were met by an army officer, lt. Constantin Ionescu, who was supposed to guide them into the airport’s defensive structure and who boarded the first truck.

However, after only 300 meters down the road the trucks were fired upon, at first from the roof of the Civilian Aviation Department building parallel to the road and immediately after from the troops located in front of the airport - the trucks halted.

The firing stopped when the soldiers in the trucks started screaming, yelling and coming out with their hands up, but unfortunately at the same time a bus carrying airport employees showed up from behind the trucks and accelerated towards the airport. At this point the troops defending the airport opened fire again, both on the soldiers and on the speeding bus. The result was 37 military personnel and 4 civilians from the bus dead. -Axi 19:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a citable, if not a definitive, version. It might be a bit excessive in terms of detail for the article. Does someone want to take on working out what's worth adding? - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Braşov rebellion
I removed these unsourced paragraphs as they're not really the mainstream view.
 * December 1989 was the last act of a sequence of events that started with the anti-Ceauşist riot in Braşov on 15 November 1987. The revolt started at the enterprise of the truck manufacturer Steagul Roşu, where a strike began in the night of 14 November, on the night-shift, and continued the next morning with a march downtown. Romanians had heard about this event through Radio Free Europe. Emil Hurezeanu recounts: "I remember that Neculai Constantin Munteanu, the moderator of the show, started the broadcast: 'Braşov! So Braşov! Now it started!' This was the tone of the whole broadcast. We had interviews, information, interpretations of some political interpretations, older press articles announcing open street protests against Ceauşescu."


 * The reprisals against strikers were rapid. The workers were arrested and imprisoned and their families terrorized, but this act on the part of the workers of Braşov set the stage for future mass revolts. In this sense, from Radio Free Europe, Emil Hurezeanu says: "... All these have been turned into an offensive. The reaction of the regime was expected... Very soon it was seen that the regime wants to hide it, to cancel it, practically not to respond to claims, not to take measures, to change anything, not to turn this protest into a public debate or even inside the party, in the Political Executive Committee. And then, the recipe of street confrontations with the regime became the only...possible [response]. It became the leitmotif of all the media analysis. [...] It was the beginning of an action against the system that comprises more items. It was a labor protest in a citadel of Ceauşescu, it was an antidictatorial message, it was a clear political context: the pressures of Moscow, Ceauşescu's refusal to accept the demands of Gorbachev, the breaking with the West, who changed the views towards the regime – all these have made us to believe that the beginning of the end was coming”.

bogdan (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies
There is the overstatement: "Romania had never undergone even limited de-Stalinization."

But scholars have taken a more nuanced approach. The Library of Congress study on Romania points out:

Gheorghiu-Dej made Pauker, Luca, and Georgescu scapegoats for the Romanian communists' past excesses and claimed that the Romanian party had purged its Stalinist elements even before Stalin had died. RZimmerwald (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the issues that probably led to the violence of the revolution wasn't that Romania had never undergone de-Stalinization (the semi-independant, western-leaning stance Ceasescu adopted throughtout the 1970s makes such a claim almost untenable), but rather the unparalleled reStalinization the country underwent in the 1980s. Unlike pretty much every other communist regime at the time, Ceasescu showed no signs of liberalizing, and instead seemed intent on installing a Stalinist personality cult where almost none had existed before. That seems to be what led to the violent revolution. If the regime had simply maintained constant, unflinching Stalinism without ever hinting at another path, it's debatable whether Ceasescu or communism would ever have been overthrown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.135.220 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting this article
I propose deleting this article and starting afresh. This is ridiculous. Read the section under Ceausescu's speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Decretei
The last paragraph of the "Background" section reads rather like an opinion piece; except for repeatedly pointing to one and the same speculative piece in "Freakonomics", no references are provided to back up the main claims made here. In the interest of keeping with the tone and style of an encyclopedia, I suggest that this paragraph be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.26.99 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It was a CIA organized putsch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-LSrsd0fw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY0eT9Czy4I&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l8qjX4SzBY&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we32VdNA5l4&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpU8_in2kqI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6nrV21o_yQ&feature=related


 * note that that that documentary is still a Western propaganda that just hints at some parts of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.23 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's downright ludicrous. If the CIA had had to power to stage coups in the Eastern block, the latter one never would have existed. The truth is that Ceasescu was just a brutal and murderous dictator, and the Rumanian people couldn't stand his tiranny anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.33.44.169 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Mood of the people was against Ceausescu due to economic crisis that is true but the "revolution" would never have been anything more than a crushed street demonstration had the key people in the army and police not been bought out by NATO (as was the case throughout Eastern Europe). Who located arrested and execute the Ceausescus? - the army. And the Eastern block was indeed broken by the CIA (and affiliated Western-European intelligence agencies) that also had it's hand in Solidarity movement in Poland and many more movements that opposed the US interests (for instance the Otpor that helped bring down Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia). However the necessary precursor to successful CIA operations was sufficient discontent with the ruling regime within the targeted countries. CIA had its share of failures such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. That is why it did not break up the Eastern bloc at once. It took time for them to gain favorable position before striking successfully through both resources invested and opponents' mistakes.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.246.238 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's ranting... your beloved Ceausescu had committed so many atrocities that he couldn't have withstood one day more. - Zorobabele

Terrorists
The discussion at Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989/Archive 1 also raises some interesting matters we haven't fully explored in the article; someone may want to write a section on the controversy over who the "terrorists" were (or if there were none at all and it was just a matter of confusion). Again, because there are so many conflicting theories, citiation is important. -- Jmabel Oct 2004

"Terrorists" were mysterious snipers, at time claimed to be a Securitate die-hards and/or Ceausescu's Libyan mercenaries. "The loyalists are assisted by terrorists from the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Syria and Libya, who are in Romania to receive training." --HanzoHattori 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe a section on the terrorists would be a good idea. The article currently presents them more or less as fact ("forces considered loyal to the old regime"), but does not discuss who or what they might have been. A section describing the enormous uncertainty about them, with quick summaries of the various theories and the evidence for and against these would better convey current scholarship about the revolution (albeit at the cost of clarity, and while also probably frustrating the reader, since about the only thing people know for certain about these supposed attackers is that there was some shooting and death and lots and lots of wild theories). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.2 (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's remove the date
When people think "Romanian Revolution", do they really think of any other event in history? Charles Essie (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There were several Romanian uprisings against the Ottomans during the 18th century that might be called revolutions, since they involved the revolt of locals against Romanian leaders (albeit ones appointed by a foreign power). There have also been a number of other violent changes of Romanian government which, while not actually revolutions, are sort of revolution-esque. For example, the events surrounding the communist consolidation of power in the late 1940s or King Micheal's Coup. The date is helpful in distinguishing between these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.2 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There were also many revolutions in Belgium, Cuba, France, Haiti, Iran, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Tunisia and Yemen but when people think "French Revolution" or "Russian Revolution" they think of the most famous ones, which are acknowledged as such by wikipedia. After all, "Romanian Revolution" already redirects here. Charles Essie (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because no one has been talking about for a while dosen't mean it's not still a problem. Charles Essie (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Romanian Revolution of 1989 → Romanian Revolution – Despite the fact that there have been many revolutions in Romamia, this one is by far the most famous, it's the same with the Belgain Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, the Iranian Revolution, the Mexican Revolution, the Nicaraguan Revolution, the Philippine Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Serbian Revolution, the Spanish Revolution, the Tunisian revolution, and the Yemeni revolution, plus, the name "Romanian Revolution" (without the date) already redirects here. Charles Essie (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – Other Romanian-related revolutions have other disambiguators like "Wallachian" or "Moldavian". --Article editor (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Red Slash 18:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong dates?
"The austerity program started in 1981 and the widespread poverty it introduced made the Communist regime very unpopular. The austerity met little resistance among the Romanians and there were only a few strikes and labour disputes, of which notable were the Jiu Valley miners' strike of 1977..." - 1977 is before 1981, right? Right? 109.72.98.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Foreign plot
The Romanian revolution, I remember very well those days on TV, was from the beginning suspected of being organised and orchestrated, at least in Bucharest, by a group of party officials led by Iliescu and masterminded and helped by the Soviet Union. This was rumoured in Romania by the opposition since January 1990. Indeed the same day of Ceausescu's flight the would be insurgents had already set up a network with international ramifications: a representative named Arbore Popescu was commenting events on our TV. It was first announced that the provisional leader would be Manea Manescu, who was in the inner circle of Ceausescu. The TV even read his biography. But in less than an hour's time it was announced that the lead had been taken by Iliescu. And it is a well known fact that Iliescu had a long standing friendship with Gorbachev. One way or another all the regimes of eastern Europe were overthrown in that period of time. In Chekoslowakia it is known that the Soviet secret services started the protests. In Bucharest, if one reads the present article carefully, it appears that the the incidents which took place on December 21 during Ceasescu's speech were prepared in advance: it is stated that someone from behind the crowd started to use megaphones and to throw stun bombs to incite chaos, this seems to be a certain proof of the assumption. The eastern bloc countries were the first to recognize the new authorities and acclaim the "revolution". Who is so naive as to believe that all these fact are mere coicidences? The Romanian opposition has since that time started to cast discredit on the "revolutionary" authorities and to demand that former communist leaders should be barred from holding any official position. As Ceausescu himself saw very clearly, it was a coup directed against him by his old foe, the Soviet Union. Unlike the other leaders who were Moscow's stooges he was reserved a less polite treatment.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There was no "foreign plot" at all, the Rumanian people was sick and tired of the Ceausescu tyranny. - Zorobabele

Introduction Improvement
I tried to update the article with as much information as needed along with inserting citations. Any help would be MUCH appreciated. Thanks. Myownworst (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly arbitrary edit
No citations provided. One citation removed. And no edit summaries.

I'm sick of the skirmishing over this, but was this edit a move forward? Probably, in some respects, but almost certainly not in others. I'll keep to the talk page, at least for now.

Removed:

"The rioters forced open the doors of the Central Committee building in an attempt to get Ceauşescu in their grip, but the dictator managed to reach the helicopter waiting for him on the roof of the building; why he chose to flee by helicopter, instead of using the intricate tunnel system beneath the Central Committee building, also remains a mystery."

The latter part ("why he chose…") was conjecture, perfectly good to lose it.

Modified: "The most widespread opinion is that Milea was assassinated in response to his refusal to follow Ceauşescu's orders. Alternative theories, however, include the possibility that Ceauşescu's communique announcing Milea's death was a forgery, and that conspiring generals might have killed Milea either in retaliation for his remaining loyal to Ceauşescu or simply in order to get rid of a potential rival. As of 2004, no assassin had been identified." …became… "The most widespread opinion at the time was that Milea was assassinated in response to his refusal to follow Ceauşescu's orders. In 2005 an investigation confirmed that the minister killed himself. It seems though that his intention was only to get incapacitated in order to be relieved from office but the bullet hit an artery and he died soon afterwards." No citation. What investigation? And how much consensus was ther on believing it? "It seems" to whom?

Modified: "With Ceauşescu out of town and Milea dead, Victor Stănculescu emerged as the head of the army. After 11 a.m., Stănculescu ordered the troops to withdraw, and then reported that the crowd had invaded the Palace Square. Troops fraternized with the demonstrators with the consent of and support from their commanding officers; again, it remains a matter of controversy whether this gesture was sincere, or rather an opportunistic move on the part of the officers." …became… "Learning that Milea killed himself, Ceauşescu appointed Victor Stănculescu as Minister of Defense, who accepted after a brief hesitation. But Stănculescu ordered the troops back to their quarters without Ceauşescu's knowledge and moreover persuaded Ceauşescu to leave by helicopter and so to become a fugitive. By refusing to carry out Ceauşescu's repressive orders, Ceauşescu still being the commander-in-chief of the army, Stănculescu played a central role in the overthrow of the tyrant. 'I had the prospect of two execution squads: Ceauşescu's and the revolutionary one!' confessed Stănculescu later. In the afternoon Stănculescu 'chose' Iliescu's among other political groups which were striving for power in the aftermath." Again, no citation. What is the sequence here? Is it uncontroversial that Ceauşescu appointed Stănculescu? (I have no idea, and there is no citation.) "Stănculescu played a central role in the overthrow of the tyrant": whose opinion is this, unattributed (not that I disagree, but Wikipedia itself isn't supposed to have opinions). "…confessed Stănculescu later", no citation. And why "confessed"? And why "chose" in (what I presume are) scare quotes? And why did we lose the part about "Troops fraternized with the demonstrators with the consent of and support from their commanding officers"? And I bet there are more questions that could reasonably be asked. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Milea killing himself thing appears to have been edited throughout Wikipedia as presented as fact "after a 2005 investigation," even though there is no record online of said investigation happening. Someone's trying to rewrite history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:CB80:F29:C67:47A9:B1F8:97AA (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Economic reforms
„economic reforms have been largely ineffective, with Romania possessing one of the largest child poverty rates in the developed world”. Romania had child (and adult) poverty problems even before the revolution, the fact that such problems still exist is not a proof that economic reforms were largely ineffective. All economic data show that now Romanian economy is better than before the Revolution. I will remove that line, as it is in contradiction with NPOV.--MariusM (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass graves found in Timisoara (journalist scandal)
Please somebody add information about mass graves found in Timisoara. There's Wikipedia aricle in french: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_charniers_de_Timi%C8%99oara, newspaper article: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-03-13/news/9001210292_1_grave-nicolae-ceausescu-bodies Later appeared a fact, that it was just a great falsification - there was no mass graves there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.118.49.176 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310202711/http://www.adevarul.ro:80/life/dupa_20_de_ani/Crimele_Revolutiei-_Masacrul_de_la_Otopeni_0_171583443.html to http://www.adevarul.ro/life/dupa_20_de_ani/Crimele_Revolutiei-_Masacrul_de_la_Otopeni_0_171583443.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060619080849/http://timisoara.com:80/timisoara/revoluti.htm to http://timisoara.com/timisoara/revoluti.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Death toll
The edit made by 217.65.120.181 (talk) on 30 January 2017, at 18.26, is questionable for the following reasons: 1. Failure to cite any reliable sources. 2. Possible violation of the neutral point of view by means of exaggerating the death toll. But this is not the right place to bring out disputes about Nicolae Ceaușescu or the Socialist Republic of Romania, no matter how these subjects are described (the dictatorial character is obvious anyway. Furthermore, the information given in the infobox collides with the Casualties section. --89.173.36.108 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Crackdown
Can somebody try and add citations to this section? I'd like to improve this article as much as possible. Myownworst (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I found this section rather interesting; it reads like it was written by somebody who was there. That would certainly explain the lack of citations. Cap&#39;n Tightpants (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

POV
This article is an anti-communist pamphlet. Very far from NPOV. Dpotop (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reality has an anti-communist bias. Sorry. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read WP:NPOV. Alslo, there is a difference in style between a non-partisan historical presentation and a satire (the last promotes a moral value, which is not the business of WP). Dpotop (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. The article is ridiculously biased. Many of the statements in this article are written with a decidedly anti-communist style and sources are cited only rarely. Whatever peoples' opinions about previous communist regimes, wikipedia is simply not the place for propaganda and bias.
 * Half of it is written like a story intended to invoke sympathy and inspire the reader. Needs a rewrite for NPOV. 92.8.246.121 (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Warning: controversy). IMO: this article is mostly biased towards "modern communists" (e.g: Iliescu). Qoou.Anonimu (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Whereas the world is simply not the place for communism. Cap&#39;n Tightpants (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Details of Milea's death
According to the article on the defense minister, Vasile Milea, suicide was not his intention, but rather incapacitation. I suspect the article on the man contains the correct information, but I am uncertain. Thoughts? Cap&#39;n Tightpants (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Article neutrality
This article has no sense of neutrality. It is very clearly written in favor of the revolutionists. Does anybody else notice this? I don't want to make changes yet since i don't know if i'm alone on this one but i seriously suggest that an article revamp should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanK79 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed at first, but you're right. Although I would personally side with them anyway, the facts seem somewhat distorted by the diction. Cap&#39;n Tightpants (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619080849/http://timisoara.com/timisoara/revoluti.htm to http://timisoara.com/timisoara/revoluti.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206054457/http://www.silencio.ro/revolutie/documentary/ to http://www.silencio.ro/revolutie/documentary/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041120022146/http://adevarulonline.ro/ to http://www.adevarulonline.ro/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209133319/http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204211613/http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Manea Mănescu, vice-president?
Was Manea Mănescu "one of the vice-presidents"? The Wikipedia article on him suggests he was merely the former PM>122.59.213.223 (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041111070108/http://www.infotim.ro/memorial89/articole/articole/art001.01.htm to http://www.infotim.ro/memorial89/articole/articole/art001.01.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal Ceaușescu's final speech
I believe that Ceaușescu's final speech should be merged into this page as it is a small unnecessary fork from this page that is already covered here.Mztourist (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Umm...Should we address this?
It's particularly interesting because it's a Securitate Colonel saying it, but I figured I should ask first before unilaterally making such a major change. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Latjenni. Peer reviewers: Latjenni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

More like "The Romanian Coup of 1989"
Communist descendants still are in control of the Romanian government. A lot of information is censored, that's why you probably won't learn anything from this. 2001:569:5685:F00:596C:BC4A:6689:8DCB (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What you say is utterly false, Rumania is undoubtedly a democracy now.--Vernel222 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)